What We Did
We evaluated two contracts, as well as
acquisition planning and program
documentation, to determine whether the cost
and availability of G222 spare parts will allow
for continued sustainability of the aircraft.
G222 Program Management Office (PMO)
officials have obligated about $486.1 million on
two G222 contracts, which includes
$60.5 million for spare parts.
What We Found
G222 PMO officials have not determined the
cost or availability of G222 spare parts. This
occurred because NATO Training Mission–
Afghanistan/Combined Security Transition
Command – Afghanistan (NTM-A/CSTC-A)
and G222 PMO officials did not effectively
manage the G222 program. Specifically,
NTM-A/CSTC-A and G222 PMO officials have
not agreed on a course of action for the G222,
and G222 PMO officials have not prepared a
sustainment plan that considers cost.
As a result, NTM-A/CSTC-A and G222 PMO
officials may spend about $200 million in
Afghanistan Security Forces Funds on spare
parts for an aircraft that does not meet
operational requirements, may be cost
prohibitive to fly, and for which several critical
spare parts to sustain the G222 are unavailable.
This amount would be in addition to the
$486.1 million that G222 PMO officials have
already obligated for the program on two
contracts. In addition, the aircraft flew only
234.2 of the required 4,500 hours from January
through September 2012.
In an August 28, 2012, memorandum to
NTM-A/CSTC-A and Air Force Life Cycle
Management Center officials, we suggested they
delay the procurement of spare parts until they
determined whether to replace or use the G222
in a limited capacity, the service life of the
G222, the impact of diminishing manufacturing
sources, and the estimated sustainment costs.
NTM-A/CSTC-A and Air Force Life Cycle
Management Center officials agreed with our
suggestions except for preparing a sustainment
plan before obligating funds for the procurement
of spare parts.
In December 2012, after draft report issuance,
the Program Executive Officer for Air Force
Mobility Programs, Air Force Life Cycle
Management Center, notified the contractor that
they would not take action to issue a new
delivery order when the G222 follow-on
sustainment support contract expires in
March 2013. The Program Executive Officer
for Air Force Mobility Programs, Air Force Life
Cycle Management Center, also indicated the
Afghan Air Force would use an alternate aircraft
to meet the long-term medium airlift
requirement. According to the Program
Executive Officer for Air Force Mobility
Programs, Air Force Life Cycle Management
Center, if the program had continued through
March 2022, as originally planned, it would
have required $830 million, in addition to the
about $200 million identified in the report, in
sustainment costs, to include a significant
amount for spare parts.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Commanding General,
NTM-A/CSTC-A, and the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force (Acquisition) determine
whether to continue to use the G222. In
addition, the Commanding General,
NTM-A/CSTC-A must develop a long-term
strategy if the G222 will continue to be used to
meet the Afghan Air Force medium airlift
requirement.
Because of actions taken by the Program
Executive Officer for Air Force Mobility
Programs, Air Force Life Cycle Management
Center, after draft report issuance, we
acknowledge that a sustainment plan is no
longer necessary for the G222 program.
Therefore, we have revised Recommendation 2
to recommend that the Program Executive
Officer for Air Force Mobility Programs, Air
Force Life Cycle Management Center, direct
G222 PMO officials not to obligate any
additional funds related to the about
$200 million in Afghanistan Security Forces
Funds, and not to expend funds previously
obligated for spare parts until exhausting all
available spare parts inventory, cannibalizing
spare parts from other G222 aircraft, and when
feasible, continuing the practice of using other
aircraft to meet the medium airlift capability.
G222 PMO officials should also develop an
executable disposal plan for the G222 and
determine whether any spare parts are needed to
support the disposal plan.
Management Comments and Our Response
Comments provided by Commander, NATO Air
Training Command-Afghanistan, on behalf of
the Commanding General, NTM-A/CSTC-A
were not responsive. However, because of
actions taken since draft report issuance, no
further comments on the final report are required.
Comments provided by the Senior Military
Assistant, Office of the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force (Acquisition), provided on behalf
of the Assistant Secretary, were responsive and
no additional comments are required.
Comments provided by the Program Executive
Officer for Air Force Mobility Programs, Air
Force Life Cycle Management Center, were not
responsive.
This report is a result of Project No. D2012-D000AT-0170.000.